US extradition request: CCJ to hear US-sanctioned father-son duo’s appeal on April 21

…grants temporary stay of extradition case

The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) on Wednesday temporarily paused the extradition committal proceedings involving United States-sanctioned and indicted Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar “Shell” Mohamed, as it ordered that the matter be put on hold until it hears and determines their appeal.

The regional court, which serves as Guyana’s final appellate court, granted an interim stay of the proceedings now before Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman, while it considers whether the Mohameds should be allowed to challenge a recent ruling of the Guyana Court of Appeal.
In delivering the order, CCJ President Justice Winston Anderson said the stay was being granted “in the interest of justice,” while at the same time underscoring that extradition matters must be dealt with urgently and without unnecessary delay.
The CCJ has fixed April 21 to hear the Mohameds’ application, which centres on whether the extradition process initiated against them was tainted by actual, perceived, or presumed political bias.
The ruling means that although the extradition committal proceedings had been expected to continue in April, they cannot move forward unless and until the CCJ gives further directions.
At the heart of the legal challenge is the Mohameds’ contention that Home Affairs Minister Oneidge Walrond acted in a manner that was legally compromised when she issued the Authority To Proceed (ATP), the document that triggered the local extradition process.

That ATP paved the way for the magistrate’s court to issue warrants for the arrest of the two men and begin committal proceedings tied to requests from the United States for their extradition to answer allegations of financial crimes.
The Mohameds are arguing that the Minister’s decision was not a simple administrative formality, but one allegedly “infected” by political bias, owing to repeated public statements made by senior government officials against Azruddin Mohamed in particular.
Their case, now before the CCJ, challenges the Guyana Court of Appeal’s finding that Walrond’s issuance of the ATP was essentially an administrative act and, therefore, not one that could be invalidated on the basis of bias in the way the applicants contend.
The father and son are asking the CCJ to overturn that finding and to determine whether the initiation of extradition proceedings, especially in circumstances where a person’s liberty and fundamental rights are at stake, must be insulated from any suggestion of political prejudice.
In the grounds advanced before the CCJ, the Mohameds maintain that the Court of Appeal failed to properly account for what they described as a stream of prejudicial public utterances made over several months by top State officials, including President Dr Irfaan Ali, Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo, and Attorney General Anil Nandlall.
According to the appeal documents, those statements allegedly branded them in advance as criminals, tax cheats, dishonest operators, and guilty parties before the extradition process had run its course.
The applicants argue that because the Minister was politically aligned with those officials and answerable within the same administration, the issuance of the ATP could not be divorced from the political atmosphere in which it was made. They are also contending that the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that any involvement by the Attorney General in facilitating or advising on the ATP could not amount to disqualifying bias.
The court directed that the respondents file affidavits in opposition on or before April 2, 2026. Written submissions on the application for special leave are to be filed on or before April 10, 2026, with any replies due by April 15, 2026.
The hearing is scheduled to take place by video conference at 09:00h AST. The panel that dealt with the matter comprised CCJ President Justice Winston Anderson, Justice Rajnauth-Lee, and Justice Chantal Ononaiwu.

Temporary measure
Speaking hours after the CCJ ruling during an interview posted to his social media page, Attorney General and Legal Affairs Minister Anil Nandlall said the order made by the CCJ should not be interpreted as a victory on the merits for the Mohameds, but rather as a temporary measure to maintain the legal position until the substantive issues are heard.
Nandlall said the hearing before the CCJ on Wednesday was essentially a case management conference, during which the court canvassed the positions of both sides before setting timelines and hearing dates.
“To preserve the status quo, to preserve the integrity of the proceedings that are pending before the court, a final court would normally preserve the status quo while the appeal is being heard, and that is precisely what the CCJ did,” Nandlall said.
He added that this, in his view, was the “normal position that final courts take across the globe” when matters are pending before them.
Nandlall said the State remained firmly opposed to the challenge being brought by the Mohameds and intends to resist both the application for special leave and the substantive appeal.
“We are of the firm view that the appeal will not succeed, that the appeal has no likelihood of success, and we respectfully maintain that position,” he said.
The Attorney General said the Government’s legal team believes the issues being raised are not of such complexity as to justify prolonged litigation, and he suggested that the CCJ itself signalled the need for swift disposal of the matter.
According to him, the court repeatedly stressed the public interest involved in extradition matters and the need for them to be treated “with dispatch”.
“The important thing that I want to emphasise is that the court repeatedly stressed the urgency of this matter and the need for it to be concluded with dispatch,” Nandlall said.
He further expressed hope that the emphasis placed by the CCJ on urgency would be reflected throughout the wider judicial process.
“I am hoping that those sentiments coming from the highest court will transmit lower down the judicial rung of the ladder so that courts who are dealing with the matter can get a clear signal that the highest court is saying that the matter must be dealt with in dispatch and speed,” he said.
The Attorney General also took aim at social media reactions that appeared to cast the interim stay as a final legal triumph for the Mohameds. He said the order granted by the CCJ was not a final determination, but merely a temporary conservatory order while the legal arguments are heard.
He noted that the April 21 hearing date is not far away and said the matter should soon move to a decisive stage.

Controversial diagnosis, delay
Before the CCJ’s intervention on Wednesday, the extradition committal proceedings had already been expected to resume April 7 to April 10. However, that timetable had itself followed an adjournment after the magistrate’s court was told that Azruddin Mohamed was suffering from dengue, with a controversial diagnosis and laboratory results submitted to the court on Tuesday.
The matter had, therefore, already been delayed at the lower court level even before the CCJ’s stay took effect. Neither the High Court nor the Guyana Court of Appeal had previously granted a stay of the committal proceedings while the related legal challenges were pending.
The Mohameds were represented by Fyard Hosein, SC; Roysdale Forde, SC; Siand Dhurjon; Damien Da Silva and Aadam Hosein.
The first respondent was represented by Douglas Mendes, SC, and Clay Hackett, while the second respondent was represented by Attorney General Mohabir Anil Nandlall, SC; Solicitor General Nigel Hawke; Deputy Solicitor General Shoshanna Lall and Dishon Persaud. Arudranauth Gossai appeared for the third respondent.